Carl G wrote:The carefully modulated tone, that lull-the-listener-to-sleep drone of cordial reasonableness, is the same. There's also a common heavy intellectual bias that conveys the impression that none of these speakers know themselves, nor get any physical exercise whatsoever. They come across as disembodied talking heads, non-experts sharing opinions, with no weight, no gravity.

Did you realize the QRS brand of Enlightenment makes one so dull? Is all-in-the-head what you're going for?

What's wrong with dull and all-in-the-head?

Personally I don't consider the shows dull they have all touched on things which interested, inspired new thoughts which challenged previous ones, and kept me entertained while drafting endless bathrooms at work (not the most thought-productive activity).

I'd rather listen to shows like that than anything more confrontational and, ultimately, frivolous.

Did you realize the QRS brand of Enlightenment makes one so dull? Is all-in-the-head what you're going for?

So what would you like to see us do? We could do some somersaults and handstands for you, but I'm not sure how that would come across in an audio podcast.

To my way of thinking, you could only find the show dull to the degree that you find reasoning deeply about life dull. The path to enlightenment is primarily a path of interior, mental development. You do have to quite literally dive inside your head. If you're finding such a prospect objectionable, then I'm not sure why you are here on this forum.

Did you realize the QRS brand of Enlightenment makes one so dull? Is all-in-the-head what you're going for?

What's wrong with dull and all-in-the-head?

All in the head is self-limiting. Without a balanced approach, considering we also have emotional and physical aspects, how can one end up but unbalanced? You are actually standing up for an exclusively intellectual path?

Personally I don't consider the shows dull they have all touched on things which interested, inspired new thoughts which challenged previous ones, and kept me entertained while drafting endless bathrooms at work (not the most thought-productive activity).

That is an extremely tepid testimonial. Yes, I agree, The Reasoning Show is not bad playing in the background. Better than some other things.

I'd rather listen to shows like that than anything more confrontational and, ultimately, frivolous.

Misidentification. Confrontational does not equal frivolous. Also, the opposite of dull is not confrontational.

Did you realize the QRS brand of Enlightenment makes one so dull? Is all-in-the-head what you're going for?

So what would you like to see us do? We could do some somersaults and handstands for you, but I'm not sure how that would come across in an audio podcast.

Hostility noted. Obviously I am not expecting you to do anything for me.

To my way of thinking, you could only find the show dull to the degree that you find reasoning deeply about life dull.

I question your way of thinking. I find your statement egoistic. My reaction to your internet production is not a litmus test of the depth of my reasoning about life. You rate your show too highly.

I disagree that your show is about deep reasoning. It is so far a coffee klatch of note comparing about various subjects political, scientific, and philosophical. It is so far topical, not deep. If it were deep it would not harp on the fundamentalist problem, for instance, building an entire show around not causes, but effects, and talking as if a solution must be found -- wisdom is at stake. That is just ignorant.

The path to enlightenment is primarily a path of interior, mental development. You do have to quite literally dive inside your head. If you're finding such a prospect objectionable, then I'm not sure why you are here on this forum.

Mental. Head. In the three years I have been reading here on almost a daily basis, this has been the QRS emphasis. The heart (emotions) (female) has been ostracized. No talk of the body except to say it's appearance is unimportant (beards, plain clothes). Do you think this is wise? I do not. I favor a balanced approach.

What is this interior development you speak of? All I see is the need for an internal masculinization (by moving as much energy as possible up into the head), and the guiding logic of A=A which which to dispel delusion. It doesn't add up. By cutting off parts of us, it lacks breadth, and depth. A whole person does not live only in his head.

I came here to see what philosophy has to offer, specifically the QRS brand. It was not until I could hear your actual voices that I could see that, in any case, that was not how I wanted to end up being. It has taken me three years to reach this understanding.

I have enjoyed my time here, and have no immediate plans to move on. I will limit my criticism of your path, now that I've reached this position. It is obviously working well for you. To each his own.

Carl G wrote:If it were deep it would not harp on the fundamentalist problem, for instance, building an entire show around not causes, but effects

I thought we covered that by talking about how fundamentalism was only another form of dogmatism. And we talked about the causes as being the lack of proper foundation of religion - namely the lack of reason.

and talking as if a solution must be found -- wisdom is at stake. That is just ignorant.

I don't follow you. Do you think we should not seek a solution to ignorance? Do you think we should not seek a solution to the problem of mindlessness, dogmatism and blind faith?

No talk of the body except to say it's appearance is unimportant (beards, plain clothes). Do you think this is wise?

Yes.

I do not. I favor a balanced approach.

A balance between what and what, exactly?

What is this interior development you speak of? All I see is the need for an internal masculinization (by moving as much energy as possible up into the head), and the guiding logic of A=A which which to dispel delusion. It doesn't add up. By cutting off parts of us, it lacks breadth, and depth. A whole person does not live only in his head.

Wisdom necessarily has reason as its basis. There's no way around this.

Wisdom can't take its cue from, say, my right elbow, or my biological drive towards the act of sex.

It was not until I could hear your actual voices that I could see that, in any case, that was not how I wanted to end up being. It has taken me three years to reach this understanding.

All in the head is self-limiting. Without a balanced approach, considering we also have emotional and physical aspects, how can one end up but unbalanced? You are actually standing up for an exclusively intellectual path?

I'm really the worst person to take up this case because I really hold no affinity to QRS, I'm just here for a little intelligent conversation which I've found lacking everywhere else (and have yet to determine whether I'll find here). If anything, though, the shows will keep me here because that is the kind of thing which I enjoy; reading and listening to intelligent conversation.

Personally, I don't strive for all-in-the-head I was just wondering what would constitute a balance, in your opinion. I really do spend a lot of time in my own head but I also find walking in the woods to be a calming and thought-provoking activity. I've approached one of the trifecta about emotionality and the answer I got was satisfactory. They don't strive to suppress emotions as much as recognize how many frivolous things will spark pointless emotional outbursts, which I am certainly trying to work towards. The problem for me is delineating between which emotions are biologically motivated and which are socially motivated.

Misidentification. Confrontational does not equal frivolous. Also, the opposite of dull is not confrontational.

I'm just trying to figure out what would constitute a non-dull program and the type which comes to mind easiest would be a confrontational one. It's really the subject matter which interests me and the way the hosts and guests speak has been clear, easy to follow, and moderately free of useless tangents so far which appeals to me.

Kevin Solway wrote:CG: If it were deep it would not harp on the fundamentalist problem, for instance, building an entire show around not causes, but effects
KS: I thought we covered that by talking about how fundamentalism was only another form of dogmatism. And we talked about the causes as being the lack of proper foundation of religion - namely the lack of reason.

The discourse got stuck in slamming vs defense of religion, though I recognize a fleeting effort to direct it into the root. The basic premise set it up to play out that way, the word fundamentalism being a political/religious buzz word. Ironically, a more fundamental approach might have served wisdom better. You could have started by establishing how most people are programmed (by church, state, commerce, family). The basic question is, why are people such automatons? The subject would probably have warranted a different guest.

You also act as if such things as 9/11 and the general Mid-East problem is simply Islam (and Christianity) run amok. You act as if you do not know that religio-politic is a global game being played on a high level. You seem to blame extremists in apparent ignorance of how they are created, or, who they even are. In short, your logic appears to leave you woefully unknowing of how the actual world works.

CG: and talking as if a solution must be found -- wisdom is at stake. That is just ignorant.

KS: I don't follow you. Do you think we should not seek a solution to ignorance? Do you think we should not seek a solution to the problem of mindlessness, dogmatism and blind faith?

A solution for ourselves individually, yes. Framed in terms of solving global problems, no. The world is as it is, and as you well know, most of humanity operates on an animal level. That is fine, is it not? What's wrong? Why the implied value judgment about others? Survival of wisdom? That wouldn't be a wise argument.

CG: I favor a balanced approach.

KS: A balance between what and what, exactly?

Mental, emotional, and physical.

Wisdom necessarily has reason as its basis. There's no way around this.

Reasoning power is a necessary element, but not necessarily the only one.

Wisdom can't take its cue from, say, my right elbow, or my biological drive towards the act of sex.

Of course it can, and should. It can come through Tai Chi and Tantra. Or simply, self observation. Why would you think that valuable data can only come through the head? That would be self-limitation (and might point to the limitations of philosophy, in general).

Ultimately, wisdom "takes its cue" from consciousness. Consciousness in context (incorporating experience). The data can be emotional or physical as well as stemming from the brain.

CG: It was not until I could hear your actual voices that I could see that, in any case, that was not how I wanted to end up being. It has taken me three years to reach this understanding.
KS: That's fair enough. But how do you want to end up being?

I disagree that your show is about deep reasoning. It is so far a coffee klatch of note comparing about various subjects political, scientific, and philosophical. It is so far topical, not deep. If it were deep it would not harp on the fundamentalist problem, for instance, building an entire show around not causes, but effects, and talking as if a solution must be found -- wisdom is at stake. That is just ignorant.

The root causes of fundamentalism were indeed discussed on that program - namely, irrationality and emotional attachments.

It is so far topical, not deep.

So far the show has dealt with the importance of rationally going beyond science, knowing the Tao, becoming more conscious, the nature of cause and effect, the importance of giving up emotional attachments, and the need to eliminate religion. Unfortunately, none of these are topical subjects in the world today, in the sense of being in the media and widely discussed. But they are timeless and deep.

Anyway, I'm saying the speakers appear dull, not the subject matter.

So the subject matter is fine after all? Your objection is that the subjects are being dealt with in a calm manner?

I must confess that I'm still finding your criticisms confusing and vague.

DQ: The path to enlightenment is primarily a path of interior, mental development. You do have to quite literally dive inside your head. If you're finding such a prospect objectionable, then I'm not sure why you are here on this forum.

Carl: Mental. Head. In the three years I have been reading here on almost a daily basis, this has been the QRS emphasis. The heart (emotions) (female) has been ostracized. No talk of the body except to say it's appearance is unimportant (beards, plain clothes). Do you think this is wise? I do not. I favor a balanced approach.

There is no such thing as "a balanced approach". That is an illusion. Every approach is extreme. Every approach involves pursuing one set of values and rejecting all others.

Islamic fundamentalists can easily be considered to be leading a "balanced life", in which they embrace the head, body and emotions. It all depends on your perspective.

What is this interior development you speak of?

Weeding out the delusions which obscure consciousness of our infinite nature.

All I see is the need for an internal masculinization (by moving as much energy as possible up into the head), and the guiding logic of A=A which which to dispel delusion. It doesn't add up. By cutting off parts of us, it lacks breadth, and depth.

Your own emphasis of thinning out your energies on a multitude of different things - e.g. head, body, emotions, etc - involves a cutting off of the single-minded mental path to enlightenment. So who is right?

A whole person does not live only in his head.

In my view, a whole person uses his head to open himself up to his infinite nature. In this way, he goes beyond the head, body and emotions. He becomes his larger self.

I came here to see what philosophy has to offer, specifically the QRS brand. It was not until I could hear your actual voices that I could see that, in any case, that was not how I wanted to end up being. It has taken me three years to reach this understanding.

Then the show has performed a service for you.

Although, from my perspective, it is a bit like watching a metal-head rejecting a piece of music because it has no metal in it.

Ultimately, I don't really care whether you like the show or not. But I was just fascinated in your criticisms of it, given your fairly extensive involvement with the forum in recent times. I'm guessing, but it would seem that you had previously regarded the contributions to the forum made by Kevin, Dan and myself as a kind of part-time hobby on our part, and now you've realized by listening to the show that we are actually serious about it, that we live and breathe what we write, and that is repulsing you.

I did think that the show would alter people's perceptions of us, but I must admit that I wasn't quite anticipating that one.

Our guest had a speciality in religion vs science, so that's why we gravitated to that subject.

You seem to blame extremists in apparent ignorance of how they are created, or, who they even are.

We also blamed people like the Pope, Mother Theresa, and anyone else who had no foundation for their beliefs.

The world is as it is, and as you well know, most of humanity operates on an animal level. That is fine, is it not? What's wrong?

What's wrong is that humanity is operating on an animal level. That's not a problem for those people who think it's okay to live on an animal level, and who don't mind if the human race goes extinct or destroys itself. But I personally have other goals, which is why I need to change other people.

Why the implied value judgment about others? Survival of wisdom? That wouldn't be a wise argument.

There's nothing unwise about having values.

We can't expect other people to want to share our values, but we can try to convert them.

CG: I favor a balanced approach.

KS: A balance between what and what, exactly?

Mental, emotional, and physical.

So let's say that your mind tells you that 1 + 1 equals 2, your emotions tell you that it equals 3, and your body tells you that it equals 4. So if we take a "balance" we would have to say that 1 + 1 equals 3, would we not?

DQ: So far the show has dealt with the importance of rationally going beyond science, knowing the Tao, becoming more conscious, the nature of cause and effect, the importance of giving up emotional attachments, and the need to eliminate religion. Unfortunately, none of these are topical subjects in the world today, in the sense of being in the media and widely discussed. But they are timeless and deep.

Sorry, wrong word. By topical I was going for skin-deep, as applying an ointment topically (which I now realize actually means locally) rather than taking internally.

DQ: So the subject matter is fine after all? Your objection is that the subjects are being dealt with in a calm manner?

I must confess that I'm still finding your criticisms confusing and vague.

I find the subject matter fine, except for the "fundamentalist" episode which I thought was oddly framed.

But the show skims through these subjects in such a surface manner that a coffee-klatch NPR-broadcast atmosphere arises.

And most of all, the moderators come across as entirely intellectual. That was the surprise for me, though it shouldn't have been, really, coming to know well the sources and emphasis of the three principles of this forum, as I have these past 3 years.

I have heard other advanced people speak, and there is more aliveness, and more gravity, in their voices.

CG: Mental. Head. In the three years I have been reading here on almost a daily basis, this has been the QRS emphasis. The heart (emotions) (female) has been ostracized. No talk of the body except to say it's appearance is unimportant (beards, plain clothes). Do you think this is wise? I do not. I favor a balanced approach.

DQ:There is no such thing as "a balanced approach". That is an illusion. Every approach is extreme. Every approach involves pursuing one set of values and rejecting all others.

An approach can be balanced and extreme. An example is G.I. Gurdjieff's Fourth Way, also known as "The Work." Gurdjieff noted there are three traditional paths: the path of the Yogi (head), the path of the Monk (heart), and the path of the Fakir (body). He then synthesized a fourth way, sometimes referred to as the path of the Sly Man. The Fourth Way combines the other three, which potentially speeds one's progress and allows (encourages) one to practice this in the world (it does not need or necessarily benefit from the withdrawal the other three usually require).

You're not familiar with this?

CG: What is this interior development you speak of?

DQ: Weeding out the delusions which obscure consciousness of our infinite nature.

You see, this sounds good. It is this sort of statement that has kept me investigating the QRS ideas. Though I would not put it that way, it sounds like it is connected to the root.

Identifying delusions is certainly important. Increasing consciousness of my inner workings, including delusions, through self-observation. Increasing consciousness, in general, through attention to the present. Realizing my place in the larger picture. That would be more my language, but it seems we are speaking of the same thing.

CG: All I see is the need for an internal masculinization (by moving as much energy as possible up into the head), and the guiding logic of A=A which which to dispel delusion. It doesn't add up. By cutting off parts of us, it lacks breadth, and depth.

DQ: Your own emphasis of thinning out your energies on a multitude of different things - e.g. head, body, emotions, etc - involves a cutting off of the single-minded mental path to enlightenment. So who is right?

There is no thinning out. I have studied the Fourth Way, and there is only concentration of energies through mutually supporting efforts, utilizing and transforming all the systems of the self.

I don't doubt your way, which I think basically the way of the Yogi. I cannot, since I have not immersed myself in it. I cannot immerse myself in it, since I am not built that way. But I have gradually come to understand some things about it. It has been educational, and interesting.

I believe Gurdjieff said that the other three methods do work, but take much longer, and, of course, pretty much require withdrawal from the world.

In my view, a whole person uses his head to open himself up to his infinite nature. In this way, he goes beyond the head, body and emotions. He becomes his larger self.

I'm guessing, but it would seem that you had previously regarded the contributions to the forum made by Kevin, Dan and myself as a kind of part-time hobby on our part, and now you've realized by listening to the show that we are actually serious about it, that we live and breathe what we write, and that is repulsing you.

That's kind of funny. Shows how way off we can be about each other using this goofy internet medium. Stuff we could clear up in a few minutes face to face continues to create misunderstanding after years of posting.

Actually, I have been well aware of how serious you folks are, beginning with that debate on Enlightenment on The Ponderer's Guild in Feb '04. It's obviously a lifestyle for you. My shock was in listening to your voices, after absorbing the ideas for 3 years, and getting the impression of dry desert trees grown over in one direction, and lacking generally, moisture, sap, juice.

Carl G wrote:I have heard other advanced people speak, and there is more aliveness, and more gravity, in their voices.

It might just be that we're not trying to appeal to people's emotions. Also, the subject material is not something we're excited about. It's not as though our wisdom is like a new cure for cancer that will magically cure all cancers by our simply popping a pill. Rather, our wisdom has been taught for thousands of years and people have unanimously rejected it in all times and cultures.

Kevin Solway wrote:Carl: I have heard other advanced people speak, and there is more aliveness, and more gravity, in their voices.

Kevin: It might just be that we're not trying to appeal to people's emotions.

You think aliveness and gravity must be something that one puts on, in order to appeal? I think wisdom would naturally cause one to exude these. I would think possessing wisdom would cause one to shine, like the sun. Are you saying you are suppressing this, in order to not appeal?

Also, the subject material is not something we're excited about.

Ah, I think it should be. I know David writes of passion.

It's not as though our wisdom is like a new cure for cancer that will magically cure all cancers by our simply popping a pill.

Well, in a way it is. Is not delusion the greatest cancer, and possibly the cause of all?

Rather, our wisdom has been taught for thousands of years and people have unanimously rejected it in all times and cultures.

Rather, what? Rejection or acceptance is not a litmus test for legitimacy as a cure. Besides, what has that to do with my point. Are you saying you withhold your exuding of aliveness and gravity as a protection against this unanimous rejection?

Kevin Solway wrote:Kevin: It might just be that we're not trying to appeal to people's emotions.

You think aliveness and gravity must be something that one puts on, in order to appeal?

Most successful speakers I've heard have an emotional excitement about what they are doing - as though they've discovered something fantastic and new. And they try to whip-up emotion in their listeners.

Such emotion is not real and not sustainable. It leads to deception.

I think wisdom would naturally cause one to exude these. I would think possessing wisdom would cause one to shine, like the sun.

To me, truths spoken simply and plainly, without any fanfare, blaze with the greatest light.

Are you saying you are suppressing this, in order to not appeal?

Personally, I don't try to suppress anything - I just follow my own natural course. This will appeal to a certain listener.

For the most part, any kind of feeling of excitement over the greatness of the knowledge of Truth doesn't arise in me to any great extent, because to me it seems more like the natural condition. It would be a bit like being excited that water falls from the clouds as rain, or that the wind blows. The Truth is so simple that it is far more sensible to feel ashamed about having ignored it than to feel excited about having discovered it.

So I think I tend to present the Truth in the manner of, "Oh dear . . . Look what I had in my pocket all along."

That's probably also an Australian way of presenting things . . . so-called "understatement".

Rather, our wisdom has been taught for thousands of years and people have unanimously rejected it in all times and cultures.

Rather, what? Rejection or acceptance is not a litmus test for legitimacy as a cure.

If the body rejects the medicine then it is no cure.

A cure is only something that makes its way through all the defences and actually heals people. Some people are susceptible to this cure, but not many in our world.

I grant that some people do respond to the more energetic and outwardly enthusiastic approach. In this case a teacher may be able to turn this on for a particular audience.

Besides, what has that to do with my point. Are you saying you withhold your exuding of aliveness and gravity as a protection against this unanimous rejection?

I'm saying that its rejection is as it should be. If it wasn't rejected, it wouldn't be what it is. Generally speaking, I think there is a grave danger in presenting it as an easily won cure for all the problems of life. This is because while is it very close, it is hidden behind many strange barriers, and these are negotiated only by pure and wondrous beings.

Having said that, some people will be of a mind that will respond better to having it presented as something that can attained simply by asking for it and taking it. As in the Bible, "Ask and you shall receive."

I like the following words from the Tao Te Ching:

Other people are contented, enjoying the sacrificial
feast of the ox.
In spring some go to the park, and climb the terrace,
But I alone am drifting, not knowing where I am.
Like a newborn babe before it learns to smile,
I am alone, without a place to go.

Others have more than they need, but I alone have
nothing.
I am a fool. Oh, yes! I am confused.
Other men are clear and bright,
But I alone am dim and weak.
Other men are sharp and clever,
But I alone am dull and stupid.
Oh, I drift like the waves of the sea,
Without direction, like the restless wind.

Everyone else is busy,
But I alone am aimless and depressed.
I am different.
I am nourished by the great mother.

The scenario was given of you sitting down beside a large sum of money. If someone grabbed the money and you had an attachment to it you would be sad or angry. However if you had no attachment you would be indifferent to its vanishing.

So let me ask you... if you had something vital to the survival of your body beside you and someone took it would you be sad or angry? Are you emotionally attached to the survival of your body? I would think so, as you seem to have put a lot of time and effort into gathering resources required to sustain your body.

Are these two one in the same? To what extent are emotional attachments part of being human and to what extent should we try to vanquish them?

WhorlyWhelk wrote:if you had something vital to the survival of your body beside you and someone took it would you be sad or angry? Are you emotionally attached to the survival of your body?

No, you would not be sad or angry. I would say that for either the large sack of money or the thing vital to survival, emotionally accepting that this is what happened is not the same thing as passively allowing others to take advantage of you. You would weigh the consequences of attempting to retrieve it, and if you determine that it is more intelligent to try to retrieve it than to let it go, you would try to retrieve it. If it was irretrievable, you would not be upset by that.

Death is a natural end to life. A wise person realizes that we are all going to die sooner or later, and we could die at any time. There is no use getting upset over that part of Reality.

WhorlyWhelk wrote:To what extent are emotional attachments part of being human and to what extent should we try to vanquish them?

My position is that any emotion that is beneficial or useful to achieving a logical goal without consequence is good to keep, and any that does not fit that criteria need to go (by way of looking at them more logically).

Others here might say that any positive emotion has negative consequences, but that it is through looking at everything logically that all emotion goes away (and it is counterproductive to try to suppress emotions).

Although I see mourning as a very private affair that should not be prolonged with circling, I agree with Susan that feelings of affection should not be eliminated. It's the grace with which you handle the changes and transformations of relationships that separates the common from the elite. What is also important is your ability to behave well in your relationships.

I had an uncle who was horribly attached to all kinds of mundane things to the point where he was cranky all the time. Eventually, his son died in a motorcycle accident, and only the week before the accident, my uncle had a final moment with his son where he was being a petty, cold hearted, crank. Weeks prior, and years prior, he was that same, cranky, petty, scolding bitter man. Obviously his son's death was a huge wake up call, and ever since he has been a radically different person.

Dan Rowden shows a very black and white thinking about feelings and emotions, and Susan was rational to deny him on his perspective that her intellectual understanding did not change her emotional engagement.

I think DQ has done a relatively admirable thing in his complete inhuman detachment, but it seems more than likely that he has not succeeded in other areas of life. The preferences of guys like DQ, KS and DR I think are more a reflection of what happens when a peculiar personality temperament seriously engages with eastern, analytic and existential philosophy. There is also a situation where friendship is effecting life choices and life views, so they are naturally products of each others influence.

This unique approach certainly has it's virtues, but I see the approach being partly an aesthetic decision than a purely rational one. The choices of these highly introverted nature's perform a nice complimentary service to the more social natures of other thinkers.

I should add that Susan Blakemore's attempt to correlate her mysticism with the mundane world is indeed a wrong approach to understanding the relationship between mind and matter in the universe. That she could not find a corroboration between astral experiences and the physical world through laboratory work does not surprise me at all, since the Tao itself does not operate in that linear manner for such small purposes. The approach of David Bohm is far more wise, less literal minded, and less presumptuous.

That does not mean the Tao is not logical, but that the causal operations are far beyond the tools of conventional science.

My personal impression is that the brain is merely a computer that processes a consciousness that is more fundamental to that computer. Rather than generate consciousness, the brain merely buffers and handles the consciousness as an operation.

However, DQ is completely right to point out that mysticism is dangerous in that we can get "hung up" on a specific experience, hence, we miss out on the much bigger picture that it's our job to take in through our single life.

Finally, DQ's admission that he has no problem with consciousness as an emergent property of causal interactions would need more elaboration. In my own view, consciousness is not created by matter any more than water is created by a water pump. The water is already there, you just need the conditions to bring the water to the surface. So consciousness is an emergent property of conditions, but that does not mean consciousness is created by conditions.